RELACIJA U ČLANU 181 DUŠANOVOG ZAKONIKA I U SREDNjOVEKOVNIM RUSKIM PRAVNIM SPOMENICIMA

Z. Čvorović
{"title":"RELACIJA U ČLANU 181 DUŠANOVOG ZAKONIKA I U SREDNjOVEKOVNIM RUSKIM PRAVNIM SPOMENICIMA","authors":"Z. Čvorović","doi":"10.46793/gp.1002.037c","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the paper, the author analyzes the regulation of Article 181 of the Dushan’s Code on the exclusive right of the ruler to judge in those cases which, due to the factual complexity of a particular case or the existence loophole in the law, were transferred from regular courts to the ruler's court. In the first part of the paper, the author presents the views of some of the most important commentators on the Dushan’s Code, which differ from one another depending on whether they qualify the institution referred to in Article 181 of the Code as a relation or an appeal. These theses, as well as the content of Article 181 of the Dushan’s Code itself, the author illuminates from the perspective of the application of the institution of relation, as well as of related procedural institutions, in the first instance of supplication, in Byzantine law and the practice of the Byzantine ruler's court. Since the ruler appropriates a significant part of the judicial power through the relation, the regulation of Article 181 of the Dushan’s Code is analyzed by comparison with other articles of the Code, which, on the one hand, broaden, and on the other, narrow the possibilities of the ruler’s interference with the regular course of court proceedings. The role that the ruler played in the judiciary under the Dushan’s Code can only be objectively judged when the provisions of the Dushan’s Code of relation and supplication are compared with similar regulations in other Slavic laws. Therefore, the paper compares the relevant regulations of the Dushan’s Code with those of the relation and supplication of Moscow and Lithuanian-Russian law.","PeriodicalId":399228,"journal":{"name":"Glasnik prava","volume":"48 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Glasnik prava","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.46793/gp.1002.037c","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the paper, the author analyzes the regulation of Article 181 of the Dushan’s Code on the exclusive right of the ruler to judge in those cases which, due to the factual complexity of a particular case or the existence loophole in the law, were transferred from regular courts to the ruler's court. In the first part of the paper, the author presents the views of some of the most important commentators on the Dushan’s Code, which differ from one another depending on whether they qualify the institution referred to in Article 181 of the Code as a relation or an appeal. These theses, as well as the content of Article 181 of the Dushan’s Code itself, the author illuminates from the perspective of the application of the institution of relation, as well as of related procedural institutions, in the first instance of supplication, in Byzantine law and the practice of the Byzantine ruler's court. Since the ruler appropriates a significant part of the judicial power through the relation, the regulation of Article 181 of the Dushan’s Code is analyzed by comparison with other articles of the Code, which, on the one hand, broaden, and on the other, narrow the possibilities of the ruler’s interference with the regular course of court proceedings. The role that the ruler played in the judiciary under the Dushan’s Code can only be objectively judged when the provisions of the Dushan’s Code of relation and supplication are compared with similar regulations in other Slavic laws. Therefore, the paper compares the relevant regulations of the Dushan’s Code with those of the relation and supplication of Moscow and Lithuanian-Russian law.
本文分析了《独山法典》第181条对因案件事实复杂或法律存在漏洞而由普通法院移送至统治者法院的案件中统治者审判权的规定。在本文的第一部分,作者介绍了一些最重要的评论家对《独山法典》的看法,这些观点的不同取决于他们是否将《独山法典》第181条所述的机构定义为关系或上诉。笔者从关系制度以及相关程序制度在一审恳求中的适用、在拜占庭法律中的适用以及拜占庭统治者法院的实践等方面,对这些论点以及《独山法典》第181条的内容进行了阐释。由于统治者通过这种关系占有了相当一部分司法权,本文通过与《独山法典》其他条文的比较来分析《独山法典》第181条的规定,一方面扩大了统治者干预法院正常诉讼过程的可能性,另一方面又缩小了统治者干预法院正常诉讼过程的可能性。只有将《独山法典》中有关关系和恳求的规定与其他斯拉夫法律中的类似规定进行比较,才能客观地判断《独山法典》中统治者在司法中的作用。因此,本文将独山法典的相关规定与莫斯科法和立陶宛-俄罗斯法的关系和适用进行比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信